What Is The Relationship Between Science and Religion? Teshale's Comment

I must say, I am in agreement with Stanek this time round, and so apologize for the short length of this response.

As Aristotle said: Everything in moderation. Science and religion, I believe, can exist together, because science usually asks "how" where religion asks "why?" Religion in some form will always exist, though science changes-- religion initially answered all "why" type of questions (Why does the sun come up? What's wrong with my cows? Why does my head hurt so bad?). The fact that it still holds such power, for so many people, and provides an answer where science struggles (why is there evil in the world? Where did everything come from? Why does pretty much everyone in the world believe that a select few things are Wrong?) suggests that it's not leaving anytime soon. Ultimately, as has been suggested before, science is in a way a form of religion; both attempt to explain why things are the way they are. That being said, an issue with argument is that religion informs everyone's thinking in some way or another and so it's difficult to distance oneself from it in making arguments. Religion in an abstract sense doesn't just have an influence on science, it influences whole cultures, and it influences thinking.
I don't mean to get into the point of whether or not morals are inherent in all humans or socially constructed, but my point is that some form of belief system-- whether it be science, Buddhism, feeling that we're all one and life goes on-- will always be carried home with you, so to speak. But Science and Religion-- organized religion-- struggle with each other. The main issue always seems to be the more "mundane" aspects, if you can call them mundane-- the sheer breadth of different subsections of Christianity, for instance, illustrates that. In my experience, what most people object to most is being told what they believe is wrong-- whether an atheist is being told he's going to hell, or a Christian being told he is a fool and an idiot.
It seems as if people's inherent nature is to lean one way or the other, and so I don't know if the two can do so on a broader scale. There will always be a Richard Dawkins and there will always be a Pat Robertson, and they will always get more attention than those who are in the middle. And if someone's in the middle, they please neither side, really. I think the middling nature of a more general spiritual belief is such that it struggles against the inflexibility, and subsequent strength, of any type of organized belief system on a broad scale.

Hey, I have a lot of answers, but I don't have all of them.